An e-mail exchange two years ago (at the start of Bush's second term), between Kyle Sampson at DOJ (who just resigned) and David Leitch (in the White House) provides an interesting perspective:
Quote:
As a historical matter, U.S. Attorneys served at least until the expiration of their 4-year term, even where an election changed the party in power - until President Clinton fired the Bush41-appointed U.S. attorneys in 1993, nearly all of whom were in the midst of their 4-year terms. In 2001, President Bush43 fired the Clinton-appointed U.S. Attorneys, some of whom were in the midst of a 4-year term, but many of whom had completed their 4-year terms and were serving in holdover status.
As an operational matter, we would like to replace 15-20 percent of the current U.S. Attorneys - the underperforming ones. (This is a rough guess; we might want to consider doing performance evaluations after Judge (referring to Gonzales) comes on board.) The vast majority of U.S. Attorneys, 80-85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc., etc.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17635404/
|
THe "Underperforming ones" (all Bush appointees in 2001) are now evidently not "loyal Bushies".
Necrosis, do you think "not loyal Bushies" is a reasonable standard for performance evaluation when it comes to Justice Dept attorneys who are there to uphold the law, regardless of political affiliation....as opposed to most other presidential appointments in other departments who are expected to be carry out a president's policy?
I think most would agree that the DOJ is the one agency that should be above partisanship...whether its under Clinton, Bush, or any future president.